1952 Topps set question?

[Smarti5051]

I think after thousands of years of history to draw on, "art" is rightly classified as an investment. Some goes up, some goes down. Some goes up, then comes down. If art can be deemed an investment, then certainly sportscards, visual displays of sports heroes of their time, are at least art adjacent, if not art itself.

So, if you reject the concept of art as an investment, then I guess it follows that sportscards are also not an investment. Otherwise, on some level, you must concede that sportscards are an investment, leaving the only issue open to debate whether sportscards are a good or bad investment.

Once you have a certain amount in stocks, bonds, real estate and bitcoin, it is kind of nice to spread your "investments" into things that bring you enjoyment. Art, rare cars, watches, and sportscards fall into that category. I certainly view my collection as an investment and justify allocating a portion of my income to sportscards as investments (even have my wife on board).

As for 1952, my opinion is long term it will continue to do well. However, if you are trying to support the opposite view, the original collectors of 1952 Topps cards are now in their 70s and 80s, so the ones holding/collecting these cards for true nostalgia's sake is waning. I feel reasonably old, and I never saw Hank Aaron or Willie Mays play, and they were still hitting in the 70s, much less Mantle, Jackie, Matthews, Berra and a handful of others that drive the value of the set.

Once all of the current older collectors pass on their 1952 collections to heirs that are not interested in sportscards, how will that impact the supply in the market and where will the "new" demand come from? The fact that you are not currently a 1952 Topps collector but are contemplating starting one is anecdotal evidence that there are new 1952 Topps collectors still entering the market, but where the supply and demand curves meet in the future is the unanswerable question.

[swarmee]

Different issue:
PSA 1-4s are considered "Collector's grade" for a reason. They don't drastically change in value, but neither are they sought out (except maybe the high numbers and gray backs).

I did a study on here a few years ago that showed the drastic losses that PSA 8 1952 Topps grades suffered.

[raulus]

I'd agree with the general sentiment here that if you want to collect the 52T set, then do it for your collecting enjoyment, and maybe even something that you can share with your progeny.

If the cardboard goes up in value between now and some future date when it's sold, then that's just gravy. But if the investment element is your primary focus, then my recommendation would be to invest in more traditional investment assets.

[Volod]

Found this cartoon in an issue of Esquire back in the 80's - always wondered if the diplomas on the wall behind the desk were business related or psychology.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Different issue:

PSA 1-4s are considered "Collector's grade" for a reason. They don't drastically change in value, but neither are they sought out (except maybe the high numbers and gray backs).



I did a study on here a few years ago that showed the drastic losses that PSA 8 1952 Topps grades suffered.

John, that sounds interesting. How can we find that piece?

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

John, that sounds interesting. How can we find that piece?

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...light=realized
Although there is sparse data actually listed, all the info is still on the APR site at PSA.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by swarmee

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...light=realized
Although there is sparse data actually listed, all the info is still on the APR site at PSA.

Thanks. I didn't realize the PSA sale-tracking started so recently. I see they just made more changes to their site in the last few days. You used to be able to just scroll through to see pictures of the sales, now you have to load each one separately from the thumbnail.

Still good stuff there. If you pick a card and a grade, you can see a chart showing prices going back as far as 2005.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

I think after thousands of years of history to draw on, "art" is rightly classified as an investment. Some goes up, some goes down. Some goes up, then comes down. If art can be deemed an investment, then certainly sportscards, visual displays of sports heroes of their time, are at least art adjacent, if not art itself.



So, if you reject the concept of art as an investment, then I guess it follows that sportscards are also not an investment. Otherwise, on some level, you must concede that sportscards are an investment, leaving the only issue open to debate whether sportscards are a good or bad investment.



Once you have a certain amount in stocks, bonds, real estate and bitcoin, it is kind of nice to spread your "investments" into things that bring you enjoyment. Art, rare cars, watches, and sportscards fall into that category. I certainly view my collection as an investment and justify allocating a portion of my income to sportscards as investments (even have my wife on board).



As for 1952, my opinion is long term it will continue to do well. However, if you are trying to support the opposite view, the original collectors of 1952 Topps cards are now in their 70s and 80s, so the ones holding/collecting these cards for true nostalgia's sake is waning. I feel reasonably old, and I never saw Hank Aaron or Willie Mays play, and they were still hitting in the 70s, much less Mantle, Jackie, Matthews, Berra and a handful of others that drive the value of the set.



Once all of the current older collectors pass on their 1952 collections to heirs that are not interested in sportscards, how will that impact the supply in the market and where will the "new" demand come from? The fact that you are not currently a 1952 Topps collector but are contemplating starting one is anecdotal evidence that there are new 1952 Topps collectors still entering the market, but where the supply and demand curves meet in the future is the unanswerable question.

You make some interesting points, especially when you touch on one of the risks of speculating in cards.

With respect to whether art is an investment, I think you answered your own question. Many people, once they achieve a certain level of wealth, spend some of their money to buy things for their own enjoyment. It's fine to have a collection of nice watches or a garage full of vintage cars. And it's nice to have expensive paintings on your wall. But people don't do that, for the most part, to increase their wealth but instead to appreciate what they have.

You mentioned Bitcoin as an investment. Do you own Bitcoin? If so, tell me how you decide what is a fair price. It's trading right now for about $100,000 per coin. Do you think that's a good deal or a bad deal? Tell me why.

For any investment, you should be able to estimate how much income the asset will earn for you, over what period of time, and based on that, you can decide how much you will pay for it.

If instead you are speculating, then all you can say is I expect this asset to go up or down because.....

There are some instances I suppose where art can be an investment. For example, if an art museum wants to display a Jackson Pollock and you can rent one to them, then there is intrinsic value there to base a price. For the most part, though, art is not an investment. You could make money on art: as you say, it goes up and down, but volatility in price does not by itself make something an investment.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Smarti5051]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

You make some interesting points, especially when you touch on one of the risks of speculating in cards.

With respect to whether art is an investment, I think you answered your own question. Many people, once they achieve a certain level of wealth, spend some of their money to buy things for their own enjoyment. It's fine to have a collection of nice watches or a garage full of vintage cars. And it's nice to have expensive paintings on your wall. But people don't do that, for the most part, to increase their wealth but instead to appreciate what they have.

You mentioned Bitcoin as an investment. Do you own Bitcoin? If so, tell me how you decide what is a fair price. It's trading right now for about $100,000 per coin. Do you think that's a good deal or a bad deal? Tell me why.

For any investment, you should be able to estimate how much income the asset will earn for you, over what period of time, and based on that, you can decide how much you will pay for it.

If instead you are speculating, then all you can say is I expect this asset to go up or down because.....

There are some instances I suppose where art can be an investment. For example, if an art museum wants to display a Jackson Pollock and you can rent one to them, then there is intrinsic value there to base a price. For the most part, though, art is not an investment. You could make money on art: as you say, it goes up and down, but volatility in price does not by itself make something an investment.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I hate to hijack another's thread by taking it too far off track, but since you posed direct questions, I will venture to address them. You asked if I own Bitcoin. Yes, I own one coin, which I bought a few years ago, along with 5 Ether. I admit that every ounce of my being rejected the concept of cryptocurrency for a decade before I purchased, and I still think it is a "pet rock." But, I ultimately decided that to be truly diversified, I needed to have a little piece of every asset class just to ensure that I am not the one left behind. If Bitcoin rises to $10M some day and crypto-kids are ruling the world, at least I will be able to continue my current quality of life.

You seem to have a very narrow view of what constitutes an investment, and for you the definition includes some ability to forecast future returns. Ironically, the three investment types you reference (stocks, bonds and real estate) fail your own definition. We can no more predict what Nvidia, P&G and Microsoft will be worth in 10 years than we can a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle. And anybody that believes the real estate market is predictable was not paying attention during the bust cycles in the 80s and late-00s. I have spent enough time in both the stock market and real estate market to know that neither one of them is the least bit predicable, but I invest heavily in both because (like cards and numerous other asset classes), they have performed well over my lifetime and, as previously stated, I want to be invested in what everyone else is investing in so I am not the one left behind when society prospers.

At base, I believe every dollar you spend on an asset that is not intended to be "used up" is on some level an investment. From there, it is up for society to determine whether such purchase was a "good" or "bad" investment, which is usually only knowable with hindsight.

Circling back to your original premise that art purchasers are primarily people who have achieved a level of wealth and simply want to spend their money to "enjoy" a piece of art, I do not believe that to be true. I have talked and read of several art purchasers who purchase notable art pieces, and while enjoyment certainly enters the equation, the expectation that the art will appreciate is usually at the core of their purchasing decision (unless it is a publicity stunt where a guy just wants to burn millions of dollars to eat a banana). I believe that in over 90% of cases where a 1952 Topps Mantle is sold, the purchaser's motivation includes value retention and appreciation. Very few are spending 6 digits completely ambivalent to the asset's future value.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

I hate to hijack another's thread by taking it too far off track, but since you posed direct questions, I will venture to address them. You asked if I own Bitcoin. Yes, I own one coin, which I bought a few years ago, along with 5 Ether. I admit that every ounce of my being rejected the concept of cryptocurrency for a decade before I purchased, and I still think it is a "pet rock." But, I ultimately decided that to be truly diversified, I needed to have a little piece of every asset class just to ensure that I am not the one left behind. If Bitcoin rises to $10M some day and crypto-kids are ruling the world, at least I will be able to continue my current quality of life.

You seem to have a very narrow view of what constitutes an investment, and for you the definition includes some ability to forecast future returns. Ironically, the three investment types you reference (stocks, bonds and real estate) fail your own definition. We can no more predict what Nvidia, P&G and Microsoft will be worth in 10 years than we can a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle. And anybody that believes the real estate market is predictable was not paying attention during the bust cycles in the 80s and late-00s. I have spent enough time in both the stock market and real estate market to know that neither one of them is the least bit predicable, but I invest heavily in both because (like cards and numerous other asset classes), they have performed well over my lifetime and, as previously stated, I want to be invested in what everyone else is investing in so I am not the one left behind when society prospers.

At base, I believe every dollar you spend on an asset that is not intended to be "used up" is on some level an investment. From there, it is up for society to determine whether such purchase was a "good" or "bad" investment, which is usually only knowable with hindsight.

Circling back to your original premise that art purchasers are primarily people who have achieved a level of wealth and simply want to spend their money to "enjoy" a piece of art, I do not believe that to be true. I have talked and read of several art purchasers who purchase notable art pieces, and while enjoyment certainly enters the equation, the expectation that the art will appreciate is usually at the core of their purchasing decision (unless it is a publicity stunt where a guy just wants to burn millions of dollars to eat a banana). I believe that in over 90% of cases where a 1952 Topps Mantle is sold, the purchaser's motivation includes value retention and appreciation. Very few are spending 6 digits completely ambivalent to the asset's future value.

You can speculate or gamble on any number of things with the intention of making a profit. That does not mean you are investing.

Company's stocks are priced based on their expected future profits. If you understand the company's business and estimate their prospects well, you can continue to hold the stock and take future dividends. Once the profits prove out, the stock price will adjust to reflect its underlying profits. For real estate, you can collect rents and earn cash flow. The point is, there is underlying financial value to these assets that you can measure, and that you continue to accrue while you have the asset.

Contrast that with your 52T Mantle. There is nothing that card is doing to earn anything for you. It is just sitting in your closet, or safe deposit box. The only way you can get any financial return on that card is to sell it to somebody else. There is no Plan B.

You can make money on cards, for sure. A lot of people on this board have made a lot of money buying and selling cards. Good for them. I hope to eventually sell my cards for a profit. But just understand that if you are buying cards hoping to sell them for more later, you are not investing, you are speculating.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

You can speculate or gamble on any number of things with the intention of making a profit. That does not mean you are investing.

Company's stocks are priced based on their expected future profits. If you understand the company's business and estimate their prospects well, you can continue to hold the stock and take future dividends. Once the profits prove out, the stock price will adjust to reflect its underlying profits. For real estate, you can collect rents and earn cash flow. The point is, there is underlying financial value to these assets that you can measure, and that you continue to accrue while you have the asset.

Contrast that with your 52T Mantle. There is nothing that card is doing to earn anything for you. It is just sitting in your closet, or safe deposit box. The only way you can get any financial return on that card is to sell it to somebody else. There is no Plan B.

You can make money on cards, for sure. A lot of people on this board have made a lot of money buying and selling cards. Good for them. I hope to eventually sell my cards for a profit. But just understand that if you are buying cards hoping to sell them for more later, you are not investing, you are speculating.

Less than half of publicly traded stocks pay dividends. Would you say then that over half are not investments and the buyers are just speculating?

[ALR-bishop]

If some years back you had decided to buy stock in Eron and Worldcom and a 52 Mantle you made at least one good choice

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Less than half of publicly traded stocks pay dividends. Would you say then that over half are not investments and the buyers are just speculating?

They are still investments. Their pricing is based on intrinsic valuation. There is underlying income there although the company reinvests it, rather than paying it out. The fact they don't pay dividends makes them riskier. Many people who buy and sell stock are speculating for sure.

[campyfan39]

Selfishly, I wish people would not buy vintage cards for investment because it takes cards out of circulation and drives up prices for pure collectors like me.

I would be hesitant to invest in cards for my kids or grandchildren, unless they were really into baseball. I would invest in land to help them build on one day. If I had already done that, I would use my wealth to do things with them and give them things they loved now, while I am alive.
Just my take.